T Nation

What is a Good Multi-Vitamin?


I haven't been taking a mulit-vitamin because i was geting most of what i needed from the food i was eating when i was eating at the mess hall at my MOS School. Now that im home its a bit harder. Anyway my question is what is a good multi-vitamin for men that you could get like at walmart or any pharmacy?

Also what is a good multi-vitamin for women since i also want to get my wife to start taking a good regular multi-vitamin?


The time it took you to post this question > The time it takes to search for your answer.




you can probably forget getting something high quality at wal-mart


Superfood by Biotest.


You may want to search older posts since this questions gets asked weekly.

As for me, I stopped using multivitamins and now use Biotest Superfood.


forget wal-mart if you want quality. check online supplement stores if there aren't any close to you. animal-pak is a good one. there are many others that vary in price that would probably be just as good.


Anyone take multi+ by Genuine Health? John Berardi approved.


Now Foods Adam.


Biotest Superfood!



I have and I liked it.

I think Bill Roberts said the multi-vitamin he uses is one by LEF and iron free. Those look good but are a bit expensive for me.


I checked out Biotest's SuperFood some and i have to say in theory it sounds good but then again it sounds like a good marketing ploy especially the part about a limited supply. So you guys that take it could you let me know how long some of you have been taking it and how does it seem to do? i want something that is good and just doesn't sound good on paper.


Been using Superfood fairly consistently since its release and I don't miss taking a multivitamin.


I might just get the Genuine Health ones, I take both Superfood and a multivit. I alternate between them and sometimes do both in one day depending on how the day goes. Superfood is not as convinient.


IMO, Superfood is one of those supplements that you probably won't see much direct/immediate benefit. But the idea is there that it's a great all around healthy idea. it's just important to buy from an ethical company and put your faith in them.
Their other supplements are top-notch, I have no reason to doubt Superfood


But I believe Berardi is also endorsed by Genuine Health, hence his approval of Greens+. TC stated this as well in the article on Superfood, prefacing the comment with something to the effect of "in the interest of full disclosure..."

I'm not surprised, but I took Greens+ at one point and liked it, too. I did not notice any boosts in energy or well being, but it was a nice peace of mind.


I tried Genuine Health, I really liked it.
There a few by Nutra-lite, worth investing in as well, but those are more expensive.


Or more precisely I use both the Two-per-day tablets and the "Super Booster."

Of course the popular saying "You get what you pay for" is terribly flawed, as a lot of times one does not. But the alternate version "You don't get more than you pay for" is almost always true, except for clearances or the like where the seller is taking a loss.

The relevance is, with inexpensive multivitamins you don't get more than you pay for.

For example, Vitamin E is best provided largely as gamma tocopherol. But uh oh, it's expensive! So inexpensive multivitamins use only or principally alpha tocopherol.

But wait! The natural form (only the d isomer) is more expensive, while the synthetic (dl, mixture of forms) while not nearly is good is a whole lot cheaper. So which does the inexpensive multivitamin use?

Or Vitamin K. Research has lately shown that much more Vitamin K is optimal than previously thought. And, it should include Vitamin K2, not just K1.

But wait a sec, that's expensive.

So the cheap multivitamins of course provide zero K2.

It goes down the line, with typical midline products that one might find in the GNC or Vitamin Shoppe or wherever having quite significant compromises, and the supermarket ones being way, way below that.

It does become a question of comparing relative to the overall diet. In a given case it may be much more called for to identify just a small number of nutrients that should individually be fortified.

But if on the other hand cutting and having as a large portion of the diet a protein product that does not provide added vitamins and minerals (beyond those minerals and electrolytes "coming along naturally" with the milk protein isolate), then going the full-coverage route may be more economical, compared to doing it with quality stuff via the individual-nutrients route.

Or if it's a quite good mostly-whole-foods diet, plus Superfood, especially if nuts are not omitted, then yes likely nothing extra is needed, though as personal opinion it seems to me that the high levels of gamma-tocopherol and K1/K2 (also D3 but that will likely require a separate product) that are likely to be achieved only with supplementation are worth doing.

Not for performance enhancement but long-term health. Performance enhancement, you might see a trace from the Vitamin E relatively to merely typical good levels but surely not much if detectable at all (I don't know.) No performance enhancement of any kind expected from the K.


Just make the damn Biotest Multi already! :slight_smile:


[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Just make the damn Biotest Multi already! :)[/quote]

this is in the works according to the interview with Dr Tim Z … thank god


Superfood is a nice product, but it is not a multivitamin.

(In case anyone skipped over the details in Bill’s post.)